It is dogma among liberals that sophisticated people understand that the Constitution is a “living, breathing document.” The idea was largely introduced into the political bloodstream by Woodrow Wilson and his allies, who were desperate to be free of the constraints of the founders’ vision. Wilson explained that he preferred an evolving, “organic,” “Darwinian” Constitution that empowered progressives to breathe whatever meaning they wished into it. It is a wildly ideological view of the nature of our political system.

It is also a font of unending hypocrisy. After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, conservatives argued that the country needed to adapt to a new asymmetrical warfare against non-state actors who posed an existential threat. They believed they were working within the bounds of the Constitution. But even if they were stretching things, why shouldn’t that be acceptable — if our Constitution is supposed to evolve with the times?

This. I cannot fathom what twisted logic one has to apply to justify the judiciary "evolving" the constitution when we already have a fucking process in place. Just admit it: When libtarded, and conservatives to a lesser extent, justices see something they don't like, they want to change it themselves rather than risk a pesky more democratic system.

look, by definition, if we didnt have a constitution/werent a constitutional state nothing wld b called unconstitutional. so ur example basically proves that its not true that "we might as well not have a constitution" since something was. very obviously different outcomes, not sure why this is so hard

o rite so when u say "not have a constitution" wat u mean is that INSTEAD of a constitution, we'd have the supreme court as a kind of superlegislation. that seems like only 1 of many ways that things might work out if we didnt have a constitution. it wld have been nice 4 u 2 b honest abt that up front, but now ive gotten it out of u.

lol. so basically your argument rests on an unsupported inference which is basically a restatement of what you want to conclude. do you have any reason to think that "living document"-jurisprudence justices are "do[ing] whatever they want" or that "originalists" aren't? you're a college freshman, right?

Your accusing something that liberal justices do, but turn a blind eye to the Rehnquist Court's reading-out-of-their-faggot-asses "state sovereign immunity" under the 11th amendment (see the Seminole Tribe line of cases).

Nope. Not saying that. It is simply a function of human rationality--we cannot be constrained by doctrine. We inevitably are deciding and litigating cases with the background of contemporary norms and ideas.

I think that if people were honest and stuck with the entire notion of the consistution that in 1950 there would have been an amendment passed banning personal ownership of nukes. i.e. fucking evolving the constitution the way it was intended.

Such amendments were not made exactly because people bought into this living consitution bullshit. They knew that under this context, no amendment re: nukes was needed. Going back and saying "Assuming we did not have a living constitution, would people have nukes?" needs to also include what would probably have been the historical amendments and changes that would occur if people did not buy the "living" bullshit.

Obviously not brother, but federal legislation imposes laws that is able to restrict rights.

Take, for instance, our idea of freedom of speech. How free is it? You only need look to slander and libel laws to realize that speech is not completely free. You can also look to Federal Securities laws with regard to material misstatements to see that certain statements result in legal liabilities. This is in contrast with our theory of "freedom of speech" but not actually in contrast with the reality of freedom of speech.

Our fundamental freedoms are limited by Constitutionally-enacted laws all the time.

i disagree with your agency rulemaking analogy, but even if i accept it, the language of the first amendment (I guess the "intelligible principle" in your analogy) is plainly inconsistent with any restriction on speech.

the obvious solution is that the constitution cant be interpreted literally, and this is the conclusion that every person who thinks about the issue comes to, even Scalia (Thomas, not so sure). Either you havent been to law school or youre flame

If you knew anything you would know that someone with TBF's stance would, odds are, like Thomas alot better. But you are an ignorant retard who thinks "DERP ORIGINALIST DERP CONSERVATIVE DERP SCALIA". Did you just read Scalia's wiki entry and see that he is claimed to be the "originalist" of the court?

i know that tbf likes thomas a lot better, hes stated that many times. my post wasnt abt who he agreed with more. its amazing that even in a small post like this u find some small distinction 2 completely fail 2 appreciate.

lol i just reread this. u realize most of the posters here are practicing or unemployed lawyers from T14 skewls rite? & ur a college freshman who believes in austrian economics magic? u might consider not accusing ppl of not knowing their shit and instead listening & trying 2 learn a bit. itll help 4 when ur finally at ur regional law skewl & get ur first semester straight Bs back.

i have but 4 watever reason thats how i like 2 post. To be fair, I can use whatever diction I want; it's not like I don't know how to spell, punctuate, and use grammar. its just that i find typing like this 2 b a healthy alternative 2 taking this place srsly. i read my own statements & remember i & every1 else are flame. Thank you for the opportunity to explain, however.